stephan huller

Again if Philo is taken by early Church Fathers to be the spokesman for "Judaism" in the age why do we assume Marcion was only reacting against Yahwehism? Why do scholars limit the possibilities to explain the origins of Marcionitism? Why isn't Marcion Jewish?

Jeffrey Gibson

In what age?

And was Philo really taken this way -- let alone by all the Church fathers?

Because he says so?

Because of non misread evidence?

Umm .. because Jesus is a central figure there?

In any case, you are the one who said that Marcion was essentially working from and with a Philonic and Rabbinic notion of "two power in heaven".

Have you read my friend Alan Segal's book on this?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

That doesn't need to be qualified because Philo was taken by Clement, Origen, Eusebius and the later Origenists as 'the spokesperson for Judaism.'

Oui, bien sûr.

Sure. In those 'Marcionite texts' that survive at the local Seven Eleven.

No because of a lack of interest and a lack of imagination. The same causes as erectile dysfunction (and 'fear' which perhaps is a third reason for not reading what our sources say about the Jewishness of Marcionitism).

Oh I see. Another one of these empty categories that the educated put forward. There is 'Judaism' over here and 'Christianity' over there and nothing 'tween. That is unlikely to have been true in the period between the end of the sacrifices and the appearance of Marcion in Rome. I don't know why you would say something so empty. But then again your education teaches you to categorize and put labels on things. A victim of your own learning. You get ahead in academic circles typically by oversimplifying. The honest recognize that not everything fits into neat boxes like that.

I suppose 'Samaritanism' and 'Judaism' is another one of these artificial categories. Nothing between them. 'Muslim' and 'Christian,' 'Muslim' and 'Jew.' That's how you write papers. But there are lots of living traditions which fall somewhere in the middle.

Yes and his later stuff. You can see he knows his stuff when it comes to the rabbinic tradition. I don't know if this was the last word on the tradition. He's sort of like Scholem. A good first step toward understanding the tradition but hardly the last word.

stephan huller

talk to the dead too?

Jeffrey Gibson

Oh, I see. I am among the dishonest now.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

An example of the dangers of artificial categories - early Jews who accepted the sanctity of Gerizim

http://www.upsite.co.il/uploaded/fil...3dc824342e.pdf

Jeffrey Gibson

Wow, another conspiracy theorist! You and Robert Tulip ought to get together. You are also from the same cloth as he is.

Thanks for revealing your true colours.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I never questioned your integrity. In fact you have been zealously pursuing and questioning claims that people put forward at the forum with a commendable rigor. But the honest - once they are made aware of emptiness of many invented categories - don't continue to put their faith in them.

stephan huller

I am not talking about fear of academia. I had two categories and then - jokingly - added the third to advance the analogy of erectile dysfunction. If scholars can be accused of fearing anything it is in failing to admit how little we know. What was it Nietzsche said: 'few of us have the courage for what we know.' The inverse is especially true here. We do not know very much about earliest Christianity and Judaism at the end of the Second Commonwealth and likely never will. The hardest thing to admit is that we don't very much in this life. We don't know if the people around us really love us or use us. We don't know if the things we count are really true. And in the scholarly pursuits we don't know much beyond the biases of our existing resources. If the collected writings of the early Church were presented as a road map and the end goal was the origins of the Christianity, we would end up within a few miles of our destination but not at our destination.

tanya

I guess I simply disagree with you. First, little is "plain" about LXX, second, "Jewish God" DOES NOT EQUAL "the Lord". Yes, in roman letters, this is written adonai, "lord" in Hebrew. Yes. That does not mean, that Jews 2000 years ago, accepted that designation of a mere human, mere mortal assignation for YHWH. sorry, I simply cannot accept that idea. yes, I understand, you and Shesh, both think that Jews of that era DID consider YHWH as "lord". Nope, disagree.

Deuteronomy 32:9

King James Version
For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
LXX
καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ ιακωβ σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ ισραηλ

Now let's go look at DSS.

There you will find Strong's Hebrew 3068, , TRANSLATED (incorrectly, in my opinion) as "LORD'S portion", not "YHWH's portion", as it should have been.

Christians sought to equate Jesus with YHWH, so they deliberately confounded the two deities, claiming on the one hand, that Jesus was the son of YHWH, and on the other hand, that Jesus had always existed, and was = to YHWH.

The legend that Jews themselves demoted YHWH to the mere mortal stature of "LORD", accepting the descriptor "adonai" for YHWH, is explained by the sharpness of the sword, held to the neck of the wives and daughters and son's of the recalcitrant Jew. It wasn't long before the Romans' obtained what they had sought: Jesus = Lord = YHWH.